How Moderators stifle freedom of expression in Debates, the police state "forum" and on moderation election.

[Resident Fascist]

Greetings. If you're like one of the many people who clicked on this topic for the absolutely abhorrent clickbait in the title, I apologise. Welcome to the Debates section, also known as the collective anushole of this board, or the moderation team's least favourite place. This thread is intended to put forward several suggestions to how the Debates section could, in my personal opinion, be better run, and cause less issues for moderators. 

 

 If you're a debates regular you probably clicked on this to either a) lock this topic, b) sheet on me or my opinions, or c) agree wholesale with the truthbombs I'm about to drop in this thread. Otherwise, please respond in any manner you see fit. As expressed in the title and in the opening statement of this thread, I feel the Debates section as a whole, is managed, at worst, with contempt and negligence, and corruption and bias at worst. While as an independent forum and not linked to any political source, YCM is not obligated to abide by any of the free speech laws that protect political speech in the majority of the Western world, I believe this is a poor excuse to suppress people's opinions in Debates. In any debate, both sides want to speak their opinion as they see it, and reducing people's abilities to say things as they see fit strangles freedom of speech. This is bad for Debates in multiple ways. Firstly, it often leaves Debates as a forum that is more often described as trying to light a bonfire in the rain. Every time a real debate, in this allegory, a fire, is started, a moderator is almost immediately dispatched to stamp on the bonfire and put the fire out. Secondly, and more importantly, it will ultimately kill Debates as a section. Debates is for well, Debates. What's a Debate without an opposition? Members need the right to speak their mind, even if their opinion is not of the popular mindset. 

 

 Does this mean I feel members should be able to say anything they like in Debates? Yes, yes I do. Moderators in real political Debates mostly exist to prevent actual physical violence between Debaters, Supporters and to generally keep the situation under control. However, the only Debates that actually matter is when both parties express their opinion truthfully and a conclusion can be reached based on both side's argument. The way it is currently set up in Debates, if you say anything that could be deemed mildly offensive to any group, but certain groups receive special protection which I feel, they do not deserve, as no group in a rational society is above scrutiny, your Debate can be shut down and you may receive warning points. When a member says something in Debates, it should be up to the rest of the Debates community to respond with at least a degree of rationale. We are not five, and while throwing colorful language at each other may look bad, all it does is weaken the argument of those hurling it. In turn, members move to ignore wildly irrational and pointless provocations within Debates, vastly improving post quality. In short, what I am proposing is a degree of self-governance within Debates. Only by holding every post by every member in Debates to account from here on is the only way I see to create a Debates forum where things are actually debated.

 

 Much like how in real politics, a big government equals a weak citizen, a strong moderation team equals a weak member. Law and order, much like in real life, is to be upheld by the members of the forum, not a selected group of elites with absolute authority. In the current system, where only moderators can pick moderators, expression of what the forum actually wants is lacking. While this mostly applies to Debates, such logic can be extrapolated to other boards if deemed successful. If the average Debates member is able to self-govern their own forum of interest with decent levels of success, why are they not given the agency to determine who ultimately governs the Debates forum itself? The moderator in the Debates forum should be there to prevent blatant rules abuses, linking to illegal content, pornography, violent imagery, and so on. Things that don't actually really contribute anything to the debate. Anything else should be fair game in the Debates forum. At the end of the day, what people's honest truthful opinions are may hurt someone's feelings. That doesn't disprove the validity of said argument. The core of freedom of speech is, at it's heart, the freedom to disagree with popular consensus in a rational and reasonable manner without fearing retaliation, from moderator or member, in any manner that may ultimately demean or cause actual damage to a member's life. Nannystating the Debates forum is not a way to create good discussion. For an example, there is a widely held trend amongst members in the Debates forum who tend to lean to the political left. This makes someone's opinion from the right, such as my own, often immediately contrary to others. If I, or any other poster crosses the line in Debates, I expect to be reprimanded by a member with hard evidence and facts, not warning points and a broken profile page. The overwhelming leftist bias in the YCM Debates forum stifles free-speech in itself, where expressing an opinion that is what any would consider "politically incorrect". 

 

 As for how moderation elections themselves would work in Debates, I feel that is not an issue to be decided solely by me, that would be outright hypocritical to everything I have said in this topic. Moderation election and the process of such in regards to a Debates moderator is to be determined by in large, the Debates Community. Thanks for reading this far, regardless of how you feel on this issue.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I fully agree, that was the original idea for the revival of debates that Jack and I wanted after all. General was getting bogged down by heated topics, so we split it into two. 

 

Recently there has been a sharp uptick of mod interference (like Zai's atrocious warning of your Islam post), and a negatively correlated demise in Debates.

 

Not saying there's a causation, as the peak of debates happened during the election and hidden variable yada yada, but the mod team does treat this place like a kidpen

 

There's a list of topics you cannot discuss in reality:

 

You can't be critical of trans people without being labeled as a spreader of hate speech.

You cannot call out Islam no matter how factual you are (and your post was fully valid factually).

And god knows what would happen to someone if they dared to question same sex marriage. 

You got mocked if you make the slightest argument against climate change.

 

 

This place also cannot work like politics irl, because the mods are not elected like irl.

 

They have unilateral power to do just about anything they want under the guise of fixing "hate speech"

 

This is not at all what I envisioned when I wanted this section made, but hey, I guess the opinion of some random funk like Draco who shows up for two weeks, drops a stink, and leaves, is what matters.

 

Ex. How many times has there been a "flood" in general since Draco jabronied and jabronied about it? 0? funking lol. 

[Maeriberii Haan]

You present your points well, but I don't get how would a lack of moderator babysitting Debates would help with the mentioned issue of the heavy leftist bias on YCM, unless the claim includes the assumption that the moderator team are heavily in favor of the left in their decision. Even then, without moderators tending to things, wouldn't the leftist bias only get stronger anyway? Since you said YCM is heavily biased to the left which means that it's the majority here, things would run its natural course and opinions would only be more openly lopsided.

 

Either that or it would just increase the amount of namecalling because both sides ends up being more vocal. Such things risks spilling into other places unnecessarily.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You present your points well, but I don't get how would a lack of moderator babysitting Debates would help with the mentioned issue of the heavy leftist bias on YCM, unless the claim includes the assumption that the moderator team are heavily in favor of the left in their decision. Even then, without moderators tending to things, wouldn't the leftist bias only get stronger anyway? Since you said YCM is heavily biased to the left which means that it's the majority here, things would run its natural course and opinions would only be more openly lopsided.

 

Either that or it would just increase the amount of namecalling because both sides ends up being more vocal. Such things risks spilling into other places unnecessarily.

 

The President earned 40% of the Millennial Vote, while Secretary Clinton earned 55%

 

I think it'd be overly generous to say that YCM has a 4:5.5 split, but typically, the right YCM fights what it lacks in numbers with persistence and ferocity. 

 

The mods don't really clamp down on the leftist bias cause most (if not all) of the mods are leftists. The one I know who voted for Trump is more a centrist tends to be disgusted with both sides.

 

If it spills out, that's a problem, and warn the sheet out of that. The debates will self regulate. Ad Hom isn't an argument, when people stop being all touchy about it, ad hom loses it's power. 

[Maeriberii Haan]

While I think bias exist, as far as I'm aware lack of clamping down is simply because most of them don't actively deal with it, and whether it's about leftists or rightists that are problematic, those members would usually be talked about if they're brought in as a topic of discussion in the subforum. They clamped down on Lazaruz back then, and (while a bit late perhaps, it's really just due to inaction), they also dealt with the issues regarding Roxas.

 

I don't know how the team goes at this point, but I believe for the most part they are still the same.

 

Honestly though, even if I'm not a Debates regular, I'm up for say, a month or two of trial period of unregulated Debates. If nothing else, it ought to show the true colors of the userbase. Whatever happens on the time period, it can be used as guideline for the moderator team going forward.

[Delibirb]

My observations have lead me to believe that the "moderator bias" you see is not leftists suppressing rightists, but them suppressing unreasonable attitude which frequently happens to come from rightists (though I agree leftists are also occasionally guilty of this, and they are dealt with less often, if only because they're better at stopping sooner or keeping it infrequent, though this is still not preferable).

 

No one is telling you to stop posting your opinions on Islam, climate change, or the transgender community. They are trying to debate with you, and show you their position, and you respond with aggression and fruitless banter rather than discussion, prompting them to follow suit. Neither side is in the right, in this case, but because the moderators, who happen to be from the left, shut it down, you've come to the conclusion that they are shutting you down, as opposed to shutting everyone down.

 

It would help if both of sides not only read my Debates Workshop, but helped to improve it. A Summit of sorts. What sorts of things does the other side do that you think hurts effective discussion? How can we educate the community so all manner of topics can be discussed without shame and without being locked?

[Aerion Brightflame]

The reason I think mods feel like we can't discuss those issues, is because quite frankly we can't;

 

In threads about Islam:

• Shard goes into a long winded, sourceless (maybe not factless, but it's always unsourced) rant phrased in a very aggresive way. 
• Winter makes a snide remark of agreement, throwing shade at people who disagree, not furthering the issue.
• Someone else steps in to try and defend them, sometimes with sources of defense, sometimes just going 'stfu you can't discuss Islam like that hurr durr'
• Either Winter of Shard reply in the same manner as they do above.

Where's the debate? One side is being c***s, the otherside rarely has a useful argument. The best that ever happens is people going 'maybe, both sides are kinda right'. That's been the pattern for most threads discussing Islam lately. And I don't mean, where is the debate in this idea, there is a very important debate to have about Islam in the modern world, it just never actually happens in YCM.

 

In threads about trans rights:

• Winter starts it up, potentially painting the issues as the biggest social injustive in decades, potentially just being a dick
• Someone replies calling out how overblown you've made it
• Winter will reply, trying to point out how stupid one was for not seeing how the slipperly slope of trans rights is the biggest social problem we face as a society because liberals.
• Someone who is either trans, or close to someone who is trans, will reply with a scathing, often personal monologue trying to get Winter to empathise with this viewpoint.
• From here, it usually goes in a circle, getting slightly more and more heated, and nothing good comes of it.

I ask again, where's the debate here? It starts off with a viewpoint most will consider hyperbole, and it ends up with someone yelling personal expierences at someone trying to get them to change there mind.

 

Same Sex Marriage:

• I can't recall a thread we've actually had on this, but because the only arguments I guess in favour of it not being a thing are either the religious one, or people finding gay people kinda icky, I can't see there being much of a debate to have here. Maybe we'll get a:
• I think the gays shouldn't marry because of my relgion
• Your religion is wrong
• 'waaaaa I'm being oppressed'

I don't see much of a debate to be had here anymore. Maybe around the issue of whether one should be able to refuse service to a couple undergoing Gay Marriage, but I view that as a seperate issue to gay marriage itself. And we've had topics on it that have derailed.

 

Global Warming:

• We've actually had good discussions on this issue. Or at least, I have with Winter and Mido at times. It's not really a hot button issue on YCM, or at least hasn't be historically.
• If it would derail it would be along the lines of (I'm guessing):
• Trump is defunded climate change
• But muh economy
• But muh planet

 

And let me be clear; I really don't give a f*** what people say in debates. I hardly post there anymore, and even if I did I feel people can say whatever they want. But I disagree with the idea that debates should be free to moderate itself, and that we can keep it in check. We really can't. There's no minimum standards, there's no accountability, there's no need to better oneself in the debate. Why would an unpoliced section of people acting like teenagers be able to look after itself in this case?

 

Like I get that you guys (Winter and Shard) think that the leftist viewpoint is oppressing you on here. But have you tried just not being c***s? Honestly? Have you tried being calm, considerate and reasonable? Because whilst you yourself mike think you guys are being calm and considerate in your posts, it doesn't read like it to me. Well I say that, you get far too many posts in general that are just passive aggressive slurs at other members in the section, which just doesn't contribute at all.

 

Like maybe in an ideal world, we'd be able to police ourselves. But we just struggle to actually have reasoned debate, so I don't see why we should police ourselves. More than that, I don't think the section has even shown improvement in post quality, because we still get one line snarky comments or meme posts from people which have no f***ing place in a debate.

 

TL:DR - Maybe we should all stop being c***s and the mods wouldn't have to step in. And yes, the irony on writing a pretty dick-ish comment asking people to stop being bastards is evident on me, but you know maybe it'll highlight how outlandish the thing is?

 

I'm actually tempted to argue from the right for the next few debates to test this theory.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My observations have lead me to believe that the "moderator bias" you see is not leftists suppressing rightists, but them suppressing unreasonable attitude which frequently happens to come from rightists (though I agree leftists are also occasionally guilty of this, and they are dealt with less often, if only because they're better at stopping sooner or keeping it infrequent, though this is still not preferable).

 

No one is telling you to stop posting your opinions on Islam, climate change, or the transgender community. They are trying to debate with you, and show you their position, and you respond with aggression and fruitless banter rather than discussion, prompting them to follow suit. Neither side is in the right, in this case, but because the moderators, who happen to be from the left, shut it down, you've come to the conclusion that they are shutting you down, as opposed to shutting everyone down.

 

 

 

It would help if both of sides not only read my Debates Workshop, but helped to improve it. A Summit of sorts. What sorts of things does the other side do that you think hurts effective discussion? How can we educate the community so all manner of topics can be discussed without shame and without being locked?

Outside of "loaded language" shard did follow your debate guide. Calling Mohammad a pedophile, while undiplomatic imo, isn't wrong in any sense given the fact he married a 12 year old.

 

If that's loaded, something I'm willing to concede, you're gonna find a lot of "loaded language" on the left. Only difference is, I can be accused of being a Nazi for having problems with Islam, but shard cannot characterize a man who fucks 12 year olds as a pedophile.

 

Gonna break another debate rule here. You're truely blind if you think there isn't a regulation crackdown favoring the left. Shard could have been more polite. But what's the difference between me mentioning the prophet funked a 12 year old and Shard calling him a pedophile?

 

---

 

Shard did source his info. I had to take it to the mods to get his bullshit punishment revoked

 

Slippery slope isn't always a fallacy. Especially not when it's actively slipping down the slope. I'm commenting after the matter.

 

Climate change and Homosexuality can be debated on more economic and unemotional terms. I say if sheet goes downhill, let it go. Hitting rock bottom a few times is a good lesson instead of Dad locking thread

 

jabroni seems entirely subjective Tom. Is me saying Trans is less valid than LGB cuntish? You'd clearly says yes. I'd defend by saying homosexuality is a state of mental coherence (body&mind agree) trans is not.

 

Facts don't care about your feelings. This isn't supposed to cuddle you

[Aerion Brightflame]

It's not your arguments that would make you a c***. You are right, facts don't cuddle you. And you'd be wrong if you think I'd say the trans argument itself is cuntish, because none of the core arguments people make the things that make me suggest 'Try not being a c***':

 

It's the way one chooses to present ones arguments and carry oneself that in my eyes makes me suggest such a thing.

 

It goes back to the same old s*** of say you using 'liberal' as a dirty word. It goes to a lack of mutual respect in an argument, that just leads to s*** getting heated and leads to any actual debate being lost. It's excarbated by your tendancies to throw cheap shots at people or ideas in places where it's ireelevant to do so.

 

Why not, you know just stop? Try it. Try making no comments about anything political outside of a debate, and during a debate try oly focusing on the point at hand, not insulting anyone, not making meme posts. If you want to go the full hog, post only s*** that you have sourced, and be kind of polite to those who argue at you, dismissing any argument they make with simple evidence and nothing more.

 

Seriously, just try it for a few weeks. Try conducting yourself in a completely different manner, whilst holding the same viewpoints. Not because 'the left is forcing me', but because I want to actually assess whether it's your viewpoints or your manner that pisses people off. Because that should lay this to bed for good right? If people still act like your a c***, it's because they can't stand your viewpoints. If people seemingly improve how the treat you, it's your manner instead.

 

If you think that everyone, and thus you by extention, can actually self moderate the section, you should be able to do this. I say prove it.

 

If you want, I'll sweeten the deal - I'll spend the period of time arguing from a right wing perspective, to further test whether it's viewpoints or manner. How about that?

[BANZAI!!!!]

This made me giggle.

 

Apologies in advance if this isn't proofread, i'm just waking up and can't really be bothered.

 

Anyway...

 

No. You're all completely incapable of self moderation. Even if YCM was a place where people played nice and conducted themselves with restraint (which it is not something like 90% of the time), the very nature of the debates section, which as far as I'm aware is to discuss topics that by their nature are divisive means that, spoiler alert, we need to keep an eye on it so that you all aren't breaking any overall site rules (Which let me remind you are rules you must follow in every section of the forum, period) with the arguments that may result. Even people who are calm and rational much of the time can get heated about politics or *insert hot-button issue here*, and many of us tend to be neither of those things to a large degree on a regular basis.

 

As for why it seems like we're suddenly popping up in debates more, its because we are. On purpose.

 

Once upon a time not to long ago I remember a lot of the userbase accusing the mod team of being lazy and inactive. Those accusations had merit, and so (at least since i've been a mod, i can't speak for beforehand), we've been doing our best to be more proactive in running the site. Inactive mods were cut from the team, the site rules were updated to their current versions, and after some (prodding) a certain duck got the mod transparency thing up and running.

 

Tl;dr, we're being more active and enforcing the site rules more strictly since, as far as I can tell, that's what the userbase wanted and hey, I totally agree with doing so. So, where you guys see some kind of bias, its actually just us doing our jobs. Behave, and actually debate topics civilly instead of slinging mud or being hateful, and you won't see those warning points go up.

 

And I know that the people who started this thread probably won't like what I just wrote, and won't take it to heart because its coming from their least-favorite staff member, but, in keeping with the above, i'm the PR guy. Call this doing my job.

 

Play nice ;)

 

-Zai

[Phantom Roxas]

Someone who is either trans, or close to someone who is trans, will reply with a scathing, often personal monologue trying to get Winter to empathise with this viewpoint.

Most other people already made great points, so the most I can do is add to this one in particular. Usually when someone hopes that Winter would empathize with them, he responds by berating the person for being too sensitive. I understand approaching things from a logical perspective, and that emotions could cloud one's judgment, but it separates arguments as if it can only ever be "logic" or "emotion", rather than finding the right balance between the two. Essentially, if someone makes brings their emotions into an argument, regardless of whether or not they should, then Winter escalates things by putting that person down for even having emotions in the first place. Someone can make a passionate argument in a bid for empathy, and the only response they'll ever get from Winter is an insult, as if the very idea of empathy is an insult to Winter.

 

And as Zai said, mods have been more proactive. I don't think it's a bias so much as one side being more inflammatory than the other, and in debates, particularly about which party you favor in an election, that's going to lead to some associations along the party binary. It's not so much that "libs" are pushing down on "conservatives" so much as people who encourage empathy are frustrated by people who mock the very idea of empathy. I know it's a cop-out to say that it's just a "coincidence" that… well, I hate to rely on buzzwords, but I suppose it's the best way to explain it. The "pro-empathy" people just happen to be liberal, and the "anti-empathy" people happen to be Trump voters.

 

So really, when binaries come up on a constant basis (Although the very nature of debates pretty much requires binaries, since you'll need two opposing positions, if not more), and people who fall on one side of that binary are punished for often than people on another side, it's going to look like there's a bias against the side that gets more punished for. However, I think a lot of that is a scapegoat, or a distraction, as it's not necessarily "This side is good therefore the other side must be bad", as I would think that the point of the Debates section is to avoid such a mindset. It's really just that some people are not on their best behavior in the forum, and attributing that to belonging to a liberal or conservative ideology is scapegoating the ideology rather than addressing concerns with the individual. Or, to put it another way, it's much easier to criticize someone else for being "uber liberal" rather than admit one's own flaws.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Yes, yes I do. Moderators in real political Debates mostly exist to prevent actual physical violence between Debaters, Supporters and to generally keep the situation under control.

 

Yeah, no. It's not Lester Holt's job to break up fisticuffs. 

 

"A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and trying to keep them from straying off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Sometimes moderators may ask questions intended to allow the debate participants to fully develop their argument in order to ensure the debate moves at pace."

 

Actual physical violence isn't the expectation at a political debate, and when it happens that's what security guards are for.

 

The core of freedom of speech is, at it's heart, the freedom to disagree with popular consensus in a rational and reasonable manner without fearing retaliation, from moderator or member, in any manner that may ultimately demean or cause actual damage to a member's life.

 

>"may ultimately demean or cause actual damage to a member's life."

This should not be possible over YCM. If you actually feel YCMers' words/actions are causing "actual damage to your life", you're in too deep. You're too emotionally invested for your own good and it's in your best interest to take a breather. Find other hobbies.   

 

I'd also suggest that in any arena in which the complete freedom of speech you're advocating for exists, your words mean nothing. What, then, is the point? To see how many tangential walls of text about "goat shaggers" you can generate and snicker to yourself? That doesn't even sound like fun. You wouldn't even be transgressive at that point, because nobody would ever hold you at your word. YCM would just be your little bubble of tyrannical decadence. There is such a thing as too much freedom. Then what happens when you inevitably have to confront the real world? I bet you'll speak real softly and politely so as not to offend anybody because you're a good little boy who saves his bile for YCM. Well hey, better here than there, wouldn't want you to see any real trouble.

 

Take your warning points like a man.  

[Resident Fascist]

My observations have lead me to believe that the "moderator bias" you see is not leftists suppressing rightists, but them suppressing unreasonable attitude which frequently happens to come from rightists (though I agree leftists are also occasionally guilty of this, and they are dealt with less often, if only because they're better at stopping sooner or keeping it infrequent, though this is still not preferable).

 

No one is telling you to stop posting your opinions on Islam, climate change, or the transgender community. They are trying to debate with you, and show you their position, and you respond with aggression and fruitless banter rather than discussion, prompting them to follow suit. Neither side is in the right, in this case, but because the moderators, who happen to be from the left, shut it down, you've come to the conclusion that they are shutting you down, as opposed to shutting everyone down.

 

It would help if both of sides not only read my Debates Workshop, but helped to improve it. A Summit of sorts. What sorts of things does the other side do that you think hurts effective discussion? How can we educate the community so all manner of topics can be discussed without shame and without being locked?

 

Please show me examples of where I have responded with "aggression" and "fruitless banter", and I will accept your point. Just remember I only actually get into Debates when I know that I'm right. I'm not making this thread because I feel like I'm personally being unreasonably targeted for being on the right. I feel like everyone on the political right is being targeted by an overwhelmingly left wing Debates community. As for what the Left does that I feel hurts valid, legitimate discussion, unreasonable protection of certain ethnic, religious and sexual groups solely based on political correctness and ultimately, emotion. No group is above the facts, and stating the facts should not be a punishable offence in a healthy Debates section.

 

The reason I think mods feel like we can't discuss those issues, is because quite frankly we can't;

 

In threads about Islam:

• Shard goes into a long winded, sourceless (maybe not factless, but it's always unsourced) rant phrased in a very aggresive way. 
• Winter makes a snide remark of agreement, throwing shade at people who disagree, not furthering the issue.
• Someone else steps in to try and defend them, sometimes with sources of defense, sometimes just going 'stfu you can't discuss Islam like that hurr durr'
• Either Winter of Shard reply in the same manner as they do above.

Where's the debate? One side is being c***s, the otherside rarely has a useful argument. The best that ever happens is people going 'maybe, both sides are kinda right'. That's been the pattern for most threads discussing Islam lately. And I don't mean, where is the debate in this idea, there is a very important debate to have about Islam in the modern world, it just never actually happens in YCM.

 

In threads about trans rights:

• Winter starts it up, potentially painting the issues as the biggest social injustive in decades, potentially just being a dick
• Someone replies calling out how overblown you've made it
• Winter will reply, trying to point out how stupid one was for not seeing how the slipperly slope of trans rights is the biggest social problem we face as a society because liberals.
• Someone who is either trans, or close to someone who is trans, will reply with a scathing, often personal monologue trying to get Winter to empathise with this viewpoint.
• From here, it usually goes in a circle, getting slightly more and more heated, and nothing good comes of it.

I ask again, where's the debate here? It starts off with a viewpoint most will consider hyperbole, and it ends up with someone yelling personal expierences at someone trying to get them to change there mind.

 

Same Sex Marriage:

• I can't recall a thread we've actually had on this, but because the only arguments I guess in favour of it not being a thing are either the religious one, or people finding gay people kinda icky, I can't see there being much of a debate to have here. Maybe we'll get a:
• I think the gays shouldn't marry because of my relgion
• Your religion is wrong
• 'waaaaa I'm being oppressed'

I don't see much of a debate to be had here anymore. Maybe around the issue of whether one should be able to refuse service to a couple undergoing Gay Marriage, but I view that as a seperate issue to gay marriage itself. And we've had topics on it that have derailed.

 

Global Warming:

• We've actually had good discussions on this issue. Or at least, I have with Winter and Mido at times. It's not really a hot button issue on YCM, or at least hasn't be historically.
• If it would derail it would be along the lines of (I'm guessing):
• Trump is defunded climate change
• But muh economy
• But muh planet

 

And let me be clear; I really don't give a f*** what people say in debates. I hardly post there anymore, and even if I did I feel people can say whatever they want. But I disagree with the idea that debates should be free to moderate itself, and that we can keep it in check. We really can't. There's no minimum standards, there's no accountability, there's no need to better oneself in the debate. Why would an unpoliced section of people acting like teenagers be able to look after itself in this case?

 

Like I get that you guys (Winter and Shard) think that the leftist viewpoint is oppressing you on here. But have you tried just not being c***s? Honestly? Have you tried being calm, considerate and reasonable? Because whilst you yourself mike think you guys are being calm and considerate in your posts, it doesn't read like it to me. Well I say that, you get far too many posts in general that are just passive aggressive slurs at other members in the section, which just doesn't contribute at all.

 

Like maybe in an ideal world, we'd be able to police ourselves. But we just struggle to actually have reasoned debate, so I don't see why we should police ourselves. More than that, I don't think the section has even shown improvement in post quality, because we still get one line snarky comments or meme posts from people which have no f***ing place in a debate.

 

TL:DR - Maybe we should all stop being c***s and the mods wouldn't have to step in. And yes, the irony on writing a pretty dick-ish comment asking people to stop being bastards is evident on me, but you know maybe it'll highlight how outlandish the thing is?

 

I'm actually tempted to argue from the right for the next few debates to test this theory.

 

I personally feel I've not been a cock to anyone in particular. Just because I've often posted arguments steeped in vitriol and at least, partially, fuelled by a slight drunken stupor and anger, doesn't mean I'm aiming that anger at anyone in particular on YCM. I've also not brought up any of the topics you mentioned in this thread at all, please don't make this thread about those topics. I personally think I've been nothing but calm, reasonable and considerate. 

 

 

Yeah, no. It's not Lester Holt's job to break up fisticuffs. 

 

"A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and trying to keep them from straying off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Sometimes moderators may ask questions intended to allow the debate participants to fully develop their argument in order to ensure the debate moves at pace."

 

Actual physical violence isn't the expectation at a political debate, and when it happens that's what security guards are for.

 

 

>"may ultimately demean or cause actual damage to a member's life."

This should not be possible over YCM. If you actually feel YCMers' words/actions are causing "actual damage to your life", you're in too deep. You're too emotionally invested for your own good and it's in your best interest to take a breather. Find other hobbies.   

 

I'd also suggest that in any arena in which the complete freedom of speech you're advocating for exists, your words mean nothing. What, then, is the point? To see how many tangential walls of text about "goat shaggers" you can generate and snicker to yourself? That doesn't even sound like fun. You wouldn't even be transgressive at that point, because nobody would ever hold you at your word. YCM would just be your little bubble of tyrannical decadence. There is such a thing as too much freedom. Then what happens when you inevitably have to confront the real world? I bet you'll speak real softly and politely so as not to offend anybody because you're a good little boy who saves his bile for YCM. Well hey, better here than there, wouldn't want you to see any real trouble.

 

Take your warning points like a man.  

 

Ever heard of swatting? Or doxxing? I'm not talking about words. I'm talking about actions, real actions being taken against people, something that is very real and can ultimately damage someone's life. I'm saying that words posted here are just that, words. And please, refrain from your pointless provocations. You won't win this argument, and making assumptions about my real life behaviour does not further your argument. Additionally, there is no such thing as too much freedom, but that's another topic for another time. 

[Dad]

So, is it you want me to step down or you want me to stop doing my job?  Which is it?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

arguments steeped in vitriol and at least, partially, fuelled by a slight drunken stupor and anger

Whether said anger is directed toward anyone here aside, do you not think a more reasonable, productive discussion would occur if said vitriol was removed?

 

The problem many people have with your arguments are not the points you make. It is the manner in which you do so. Not to mention that many of the things you present as "facts" are nothing such, ranging from blatant falsehoods to emotionally charged hyperbole. When people try to point out these flaws, they are accused of censorship, oppression, and many other injustices that only barely apply to forums, let alone one as easy-going as this.

 

If you just want to rant and generalize cultures, there are places to do so, but YCM is not (nor should it be, as I see it) one of those places.

[Delibirb]

 

Please show me examples of where I have responded with "aggression" and "fruitless banter", and I will accept your point. Just remember I only actually get into Debates when I know that I'm right. I'm not making this thread because I feel like I'm personally being unreasonably targeted for being on the right. I feel like everyone on the political right is being targeted by an overwhelmingly left wing Debates community. As for what the Left does that I feel hurts valid, legitimate discussion, unreasonable protection of certain ethnic, religious and sexual groups solely based on political correctness and ultimately, emotion. No group is above the facts, and stating the facts should not be a punishable offence in a healthy Debates section.

Apologies, I was intending the use "you" in the royal tense, as in "you people who are more frequently on the receiving end of moderation."

 

I can't give you any examples of your personal aggression or fruitless banter because as you said, you personally are not here particularly often. Though your post on Islam was agressive, if nothing else.

 

On YCM, in the Debates section, don't think anyone is "protecting" any group. The left is adamant about who it feels deserves rights, so their arguments in those topics reflects that. The problem arises when the right feels the need to actually offend a group as opposed to effectively elaborate on their position with regards to it, and as a result, the heat of the topic escalates until the one who was originally out of line gets warned, verbally or otherwise.

 

Again, the problem is, as brightflame said less eloquently, "your side" more frequently resorts to tactics that ignite passions rather than foster discussions. The other does it too on occasion, this I've noticed, but not with such consistency.

 

You (royal you) need to be willing to accept that while you have the right to speak your mind, doing so without respect to the climate will not help discussions turn to your favor. You need to work on finding effective methods if debate, and ideally help to perfect my workshop so others, from across the political spectrum, can follow suit, and our topics can start feeling like achievements than blemishes.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I personally feel I've not been a cock to anyone in particular. Just because I've often posted arguments steeped in vitriol and at least, partially, fuelled by a slight drunken stupor and anger, doesn't mean I'm aiming that anger at anyone in particular on YCM. I've also not brought up any of the topics you mentioned in this thread at all, please don't make this thread about those topics. I personally think I've been nothing but calm, reasonable and considerate. 

 

It's not about you being a jabroni to anyone specifically. It's just being a jabroni in general. Like a thread where one comes in being hostile about what one is arguing is like to make the thread hostile to other people in general because it makes people defensive.

 

It's that anger that's the issue; the posts you make that are 'problematic', usually about Isreal/Palestine, or Islam in general, are filled with passion tainted vitrol, and debately a sense of self certainty (You highlighted that part earlier, saying that 'you only post in debates when you know you are right'. I personally think that is one of the worst attitudes for a debate because it leads to condesencion when people disagree. But that's a different issue). Passion is fine, but the anger takes what should be cold, detached and kinda emphircal into being passionate and subjective. You throw slurs at the culture you disagree with, you attempt to demonise them.

 

It's great in a political speech, but it's awful in this kind of debate. And then afterwards, when one tries to defend the other side, your responses are evenly coloured with vitrol; You think someone is idiotic for not seeing the truth about Islam, you think Merkel is a 'traitor' for letting the refugees in say.

 

And whilst that's fine on something like Gavin Mcinnesses or Steven Crowders youtube channels, which seek to entertain and thus take lierbties and make jokes at the expense of the people opposing them (Because that's the point of them right 'laugh at this ignorant liberal, laugh'). But it's wrong here, in what we I assume all want to be serious reasoned discussions.

 

I mentioned those topics in part because Winter mentioned them, and in part because the abilities of members in the section to manage contraversial topics is directly pertinent to the argument we can manage ourselves. If we can't keep thinks managed, and civil when sheet is at it's worst when we have moderators keep things 'calm' how on earth could we do so without mods?

 

Again to reiterate; The complaint of people being bastards has nothing to do with the arguments they make but the way they present them.

 

I'm gonna post again in a bit with a thought excersize for you to highligh the sort of 'being a jabroni' I mean, so keep an eye out.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So, is it you want me to step down or you want me to stop doing my job?  Which is it?

You're pretty much doing the job of PR mod already, and in general look over the rest of the site. So Neither?

 

I personally want you to give Nai's idea a try

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Ever heard of swatting? Or doxxing? I'm talking about actions, real actions being taken against people, something that is very real and can ultimately damage someone's life. 

 

Are either happening to you?

Are YCMers doing it to you or anyone else? 

If so, then let's talk about it.

If no, then what are we talking about?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Are either happening to you?

Are YCMers doing it to you or anyone else? 

If so, then let's talk about it.

If no, then what are we talking about?

What's the point of debates if we're just gonna turn it into what General was. You might as well call this a failed experiment and move on. 

 

The debate mod team, with the blessing of the YCM left, pushed a series of amendments to debates like the flood clause, and they ended up doing all of jack sheet.

 

It's not about Shard taking his points like man, because he never did anything to deserve them. Certain mods just want to carve a name out for themselves and pander to a certain population

It's not your arguments that would make you a c***. You are right, facts don't cuddle you. And you'd be wrong if you think I'd say the trans argument itself is cuntish, because none of the core arguments people make the things that make me suggest 'Try not being a c***':

 

It's the way one chooses to present ones arguments and carry oneself that in my eyes makes me suggest such a thing.

 

It goes back to the same old s*** of say you using 'liberal' as a dirty word. It goes to a lack of mutual respect in an argument, that just leads to s*** getting heated and leads to any actual debate being lost. It's excarbated by your tendancies to throw cheap shots at people or ideas in places where it's ireelevant to do so.

 

Why not, you know just stop? Try it. Try making no comments about anything political outside of a debate, and during a debate try oly focusing on the point at hand, not insulting anyone, not making meme posts. If you want to go the full hog, post only s*** that you have sourced, and be kind of polite to those who argue at you, dismissing any argument they make with simple evidence and nothing more.

 

Seriously, just try it for a few weeks. Try conducting yourself in a completely different manner, whilst holding the same viewpoints. Not because 'the left is forcing me', but because I want to actually assess whether it's your viewpoints or your manner that pisses people off. Because that should lay this to bed for good right? If people still act like your a c***, it's because they can't stand your viewpoints. If people seemingly improve how the treat you, it's your manner instead.

 

If you think that everyone, and thus you by extention, can actually self moderate the section, you should be able to do this. I say prove it.

 

If you want, I'll sweeten the deal - I'll spend the period of time arguing from a right wing perspective, to further test whether it's viewpoints or manner. How about that?

fine

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Certain mods just want to carve a name out for themselves and pander to a certain population

 

On this I can agree.

 

This post in general is terrible. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Once upon a time not to long ago I remember a lot of the userbase accusing the mod team of being lazy and inactive. Those accusations had merit, and so (at least since i've been a mod, i can't speak for beforehand), we've been doing our best to be more proactive in running the site. Inactive mods were cut from the team, the site rules were updated to their current versions, and after some (prodding) a certain duck got the mod transparency thing up and running.

 

Tl;dr, we're being more active and enforcing the site rules more strictly since, as far as I can tell, that's what the userbase wanted and hey, I totally agree with doing so. So, where you guys see some kind of bias, its actually just us doing our jobs. Behave, and actually debate topics civilly instead of slinging mud or being hateful, and you won't see those warning points go up.

That's a lot of conflating you have going on. There's a difference between wanting two guys who haven't posted in months and one guys who's role is "mod discussions" off the team and wanting to go Starwars and delegate emergency power to the mod team

 

Shorter Zai is really: Nah, y'all can't handle it. But that's not the point, if Debates hits rock bottom, it hits rock bottom. If it spills out of debates to status and such. Then you guys should aggressively prosecute it. You're ruling on the merits of construct situation you've never seen. 

 

Short of posting porn, I'm sure you should expand "site rules" here. If someone is sheet posting, they should ideally lose support from both sides of the argument pretty fast (it happened with Laz).

 

No offense Zai, but you haven't been here the longest nor see the regulation take place 

[Dad]

Remember to keep it civil.  Let me address something if I may.

 

When you say no influence or mod interference, you want me to run it like the #politics channel in Discord?  Is that a good example?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Remember to keep it civil.  Let me address something if I may.

 

When you say no influence or mod interference, you want me to run it like the #politics channel in Discord?  Is that a good example?

Yes, cause it'd be hard for Deadpool to ask me the same question every day here, like he did in politics.

 

Also with a higher population (instead of 3 guys who just wanna screw around), there would be more self-regulation. 

 

ie. If Kush, Deadpool and Kaiji wanna just post "rofl" after every comment, that's only gonna fly if they're they typical userbase

[Aerion Brightflame]

Isn't self regulation based on the idea that

 

a) People are willing to go 'That's a sheet post, don't do that'

b) The people who make the sheet posts are actually willing to listen and improve upon it

 

Like it relies of the section having an actual drive for self improvement say, or an ability to hold people accountable in a debate. But... without mods we can't hold them accountable, or make people give a sheet about improvement.

 

Compared to say if you are a constant troll in real life, where someone can just slap you for being a troll instead? What aspect of the idea or mistaken am I missing there?